End of "First Communion" Celebrations in US Melkite Greek Catholic Church

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you, I think it’s Heb ch 5 St. Paul talks about infants being given milk, not solid food and that some adults can’t even be given solid food, because they are spiritually infants. There’s just so much scripture and sacred tradition that weighs for the reception of the Eucharist at an appropriate age of concious reason I don’t see how anyone can be so adamantly opposed to an innocent solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately.

This is because you are a Roman Catholic and approaching this from that mindset.

It is obvious from this thread that you have no experience of the Byzantine Tradition.

There is nothing wrong with that except for when you try to promote the Roman way of doing things for us in the Byzantine Church.

As an Orthodox friend of mine says, he can not understand how the Roman Catholics welcome a child into the Faith at baptism and then excommunicates them until the age of reason.

Just an aside, when Paul speaks of milk for infants he is not talking about actual infants, he is talking about anyone new to the faith, a neophyte. I am sure that you are not against the reception of the Eucharist by an adult who is entering the Church.

The East and West have different traditions and ways of doing things. You must respect this. You must not try to force your ways upon us and we will do likewise.

 

[brumano]

This is because you are a Roman Catholic and approaching this from that mindset.

It is obvious from this thread that you have no experience of the Byzantine Tradition.

There is nothing wrong with that except for when you try to promote the Roman way of doing things for us in the Byzantine Church.

As an Orthodox friend of mine says, he can not understand how the Roman Catholics welcome a child into the Faith at baptism and then excommunicates them until the age of reason.

Just an aside, when Paul speaks of milk for infants he is not talking about actual infants, he is talking about anyone new to the faith, a neophyte. I am sure that you are not against the reception of the Eucharist by an adult who is entering the Church.

The East and West have different traditions and ways of doing things. You must respect this. You must not try to force your ways upon us and we will do likewise.

One aside deserves another if it leads to better understanding, next time your orthodox friend bring this up you can tell him that when as Catholics we are Baptized in the name of all three persons of the one God with water, the punishment for original and all sin is clensed away and the individual whether infant adult or elderly adult person is brought fully into the real life of God in His Holy Church. This is the communion that takes place by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament that is entered into by the will of the infant’s parents and Godparents in conjunction with all the church. The person is fully in communion with all of the church, not excommunicated in the least, but growing toward the day of the Sacrament of his or her First Holy Communion.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

One aside deserves another if it leads to better understanding, next time your orthodox friend bring this up you can tell him that when as Catholics we are Baptized in the name of all three persons of the one God with water, the punishment for original and all sin is clensed away and the individual whether infant adult or elderly adult person is brought fully into the real life of God in His Holy Church. This is the communion that takes place by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament that is entered into by the will of the infant’s parents and Godparents in conjunction with all the church. The person is fully in communion with all of the church, not excommunicated in the least, but growing toward the day of the Sacrament of his or her First Holy Communion.

Excommunication means being excluded from the communion of the Church, which is symbolized in its most concrete reality through the denial of the individual to receive Holy Communion. The comparison of an infant being “excommunicated” after baptism in the West is very appropriate, even if it does misunderstand the West’s reasoning behind it.

But that is not what this discussion is about.

 

[Peter_J]

Excommunication means being excluded from the communion of the Church, which is symbolized in its most concrete reality through the denial of the individual to receive Holy Communion. The comparison of an infant being “excommunicated” after baptism in the West is very appropriate, even if it does misunderstand the West’s reasoning behind it.

Separation of baptism, confirmation, and (first) communion is a very ancient Western practice, although in modern times some have taken it to the point of absurdity – for example, someone on this forum recently mentioned that she wasn’t confirmed until the age of sixteen!

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you, I think it’s Heb ch 5 St. Paul talks about infants being given milk, not solid food and that some adults can’t even be given solid food, because they are spiritually infants. There’s just so much scripture and sacred tradition that weighs for the reception of the Eucharist at an appropriate age of concious reason I don’t see how anyone can be so adamantly opposed to an innocent solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately.

I’m not too worried about that. There will still be plenty of solemn communion masses, just not in the Melkite Church.

 

[Peter_J]

This is not really pertinent to the topic at hand.

Perhaps not, but Chris makes a very good point nevertheless:

Would Rome be so kind to insist upon the same of her own Rite, she would perhaps be taken more seriously by the Eastern Churches.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Perhaps not, but Chris makes a very good point nevertheless:

But Rome does insist upon the same for her own Rite. The problem is not on Rome’s insistence, but on other’s obedience.

 

[RyanBlack]

Separation of baptism, confirmation, and (first) communion is a very ancient Western practice, although in modern times some have taken it to the point of absurdity – for example, someone on this forum recently mentioned that she wasn’t confirmed until the age of sixteen!

But when it first arose, it was only separated due to the fact that the bishops in the West retained the prerogative of confirmation. Infants were baptized, often with a day or so of birth, then they would be confirmed the next time the bishop visited the parish. The whole issue of delaying admittance to Holy Communion until the age of reason did not arise until after the Church in the West restricted the Chalice to clergy.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thank you, I think it’s Heb ch 5 St. Paul talks about infants being given milk, not solid food and that some adults can’t even be given solid food, because they are spiritually infants. There’s just so much scripture and sacred tradition that weighs for the reception of the Eucharist at an appropriate age of concious reason I don’t see how anyone can be so adamantly opposed to an innocent solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately.

And I don’t see why you cannot understand (in spite of the fact that I’ve pointed it out numerous times in this thread) that separating admittance to communion from baptism is both inconsistent with the ancient traditions of the eastern Churches and a VIOLATION OF THE EASTERN CODE CANON LAW (except in cases of true necessity).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

One aside deserves another if it leads to better understanding, next time your orthodox friend bring this up you can tell him that when as Catholics we are Baptized in the name of all three persons of the one God with water, the punishment for original and all sin is clensed away and the individual whether infant adult or elderly adult person is brought fully into the real life of God in His Holy Church. This is the communion that takes place by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament that is entered into by the will of the infant’s parents and Godparents in conjunction with all the church. The person is fully in communion with all of the church, not excommunicated in the least, but growing toward the day of the Sacrament of his or her First Holy Communion.

I see you do not understand, Orthodox baptism is the same.

As for the excommunication comment he is speaking of the welcome into the Church and then exclusion from the Eucharist which is what excommunication does.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And I don’t see why you cannot understand (in spite of the fact that I’ve pointed it out numerous times in this thread) that separating admittance to communion from baptism is both inconsistent with the ancient traditions of the eastern Churches and a VIOLATION OF THE EASTERN CODE CANON LAW (except in cases of true necessity).

I think the best response we can give is “You know not of what you speak.”

And then move on to other topics as this one seem to be moving no where except in circles.

 

[Vico]

There was a key phrase used in earlier posts “…solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately”.

Note the work legitimately, which means with reference to the liturgical norms of the sui iuris Church and not within the canon law or dispensed canon law (where it is not against the divine law - which impacts validity).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There was a key phrase used in earlier posts “…solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately”.

Note the work legitimately, which means with reference to the liturgical norms of the sui iuris Church and not within the canon law or dispensed canon law (where it is not against the divine law - which impacts validity).

Does the use of legitimately just mean licitly? Where as illegitimately would me illicitly?

Which then does fit within canon law.

Having ask that, though, your point in this reply is?

 

[brumano]

There was a key phrase used in earlier posts “…solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately”.

Note the work legitimately, which means with reference to the liturgical norms of the sui iuris Church and not within the canon law or dispensed canon law (where it is not against the divine law - which impacts validity).

The point is very well understood and very well taken, there was no violation or abuse of anything, Everything they were doing in these special liturgies was completely proper and in perfect keeping with all Sacred Traditions, Canon Laws, Codes, and Ordinances.
But! they will say, the Bishop does not want it! And the Bishop has the right! The Bishop has his rights, but no Bishop has the right to declare a practice that is licit as illicit, just the same as any Bishop could not declare that any illicit practice was licit. The point you make is best, the Divine Law stands above all.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I don’t know if you mean this as satire or as if in cheering. If the first Holy Communion of a Son or Daughter is not good cause for great celebrating in the family and in the family of the church, I don’t know what could be. I don’t think you should hope too whole heartedly for the death of all Latin innovations in your church, you may find your own to be quite lifeless without them.

I was received into the Latin Church by a bi-ritual Latin Monsignor/Melkite Archimandrite. Believe me, I love the Latin Church, even though I am head of the Byzantine College ministry at my school and I serve at the local Ruthenian parish (and Maronite mission).

I mean that I think it is deplorable that the Latin church excommunicates all its members for the first seven years of their lives, and that it forced this un-apostolic innovation upon other churches. The quicker we abandon this innovation, the better.

Another one to abandon? Postponing chrismation until adolescence. They need the grace BEFORE adolescence.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The point is very well understood and very well taken, there was no violation or abuse of anything, Everything they were doing in these special liturgies was completely proper and in perfect keeping with all Sacred Traditions, Canon Laws, Codes, and Ordinances.
But! they will say, the Bishop does not want it! And the Bishop has the right! The Bishop has his rights, but no Bishop has the right to declare a practice that is licit as illicit, just the same as any Bishop could not declare that any illicit practice was licit. The point you make is best, the Divine Law stands above all.

Quite simply, you are wrong. The practice of First Communion and Solemn Communion among the Melkites is NOT tradition, it is CONDEMNED in the Eastern Code of Canon Law, it has even been criticized by Rome as inappropriate for the Churches of the Byzantine tradition (again the Melkites are Byzantine).

First Communion and Solemn Communion are not even part of Sacred Tradition. It is a local discipline practiced by the Roman Church. The separation of the three Sacraments of Initiation in the West didn’t even come about definitively until the Middle Ages.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I was received into the Latin Church by a bi-ritual Latin Monsignor/Melkite Archimandrite. Believe me, I love the Latin Church, even though I am head of the Byzantine College ministry at my school and I serve at the local Ruthenian parish (and Maronite mission).

I mean that I think it is deplorable that the Latin church excommunicates all its members for the first seven years of their lives, and that it forced this un-apostolic innovation upon other churches. The quicker we abandon this innovation, the better.

Another one to abandon? Postponing chrismation until adolescence. They need the grace BEFORE adolescence.

I don’t use this one often, but

 

[Peter_J]

The point is very well understood and very well taken, there was no violation or abuse of anything, Everything they were doing in these special liturgies was completely proper and in perfect keeping with all Sacred Traditions, Canon Laws, Codes, and Ordinances.
But! they will say, the Bishop does not want it! And the Bishop has the right! The Bishop has his rights, but no Bishop has the right to declare a practice that is licit as illicit, just the same as any Bishop could not declare that any illicit practice was licit. The point you make is best, the Divine Law stands above all.

Hi brumano. I don’t think I understood your position until this latest post. Now that I understand it I must say that I’m a little shocked by it.

 

[brumano]

And I don’t see why you cannot understand (in spite of the fact that I’ve pointed it out numerous times in this thread) that separating admittance to communion from baptism is both inconsistent with the ancient traditions of the eastern Churches and a VIOLATION OF THE EASTERN CODE CANON LAW (except in cases of true necessity).

This might be a case here of talking at cross purposes, above or aside the other person’s head. no one was being separated from communion. If you really want to know why some Melkites were holding Sacred Eucharistic Liturgy take a good long hard look at that iconic icon you present with all of your posts, maybe then you’ll understand and at least you’ll understand why they were donig these ceremonies to begin with.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This might be a case here of talking at cross purposes, above or aside the other person’s head. no one was being separated from communion. If you really want to know why some Melkites were holding Sacred Eucharistic Liturgy take a good long hard look at that iconic icon you present with all of your posts, maybe then you’ll understand and at least you’ll understand why they were donig these ceremonies to begin with.

Here again you are simply wrong. There were people being separated from Communion, namely infants who had been baptized and chrismated/confirmed. In some cases they were denied the reception of Communion at their baptism - which is where infants in the Eastern/Byzantine/Melkite tradition traditionally receive their first Communion (and continue receiving after that). In the case of “Solemn Communion” a new innovation was introduced into the traditional Melkite/Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy that was simply frivolous. “Solemn Communions” have no significance really for those who have been receiving the Eucharist their entire lives, from the moment of their baptism.

“First Communion” (i.e. in the Roman fashion after the child has reached the so-called “age of reason”) is simply not a legitimate Melkite/Byzantine practice, nor is it traditional. The traditional practice for the Melkites and all other Byzantines is for the infant to receive all three Sacraments of Initiation on the same day, at the same Liturgy. For example, my three year old daughter was baptized, confirmed/chrismated, and received her first Communion all at once (albeit in the hospital). She has been receiving Holy Communion every Sunday since then. It will be the same with my son on Mother’s Day. He will be fully initiated into the life of the Church and will from then on be a partaker of Holy Communion. No need for “Solemn Communion” (whatever that actually is), he will already be a full member of the Church.